[calsify] Re: Question about organizerCalendarAddress in JSCalendar bis

[Mauro De Gennaro <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

>> I agree. It does seem that the “owner” property is used exclusively by JMAP for Calendars to enforce permissions in shared calendar scenarios, and I struggle to see how it would be useful outside that context. For example, I don’t see a meaningful use for this property when JSCalendar is used as a standalone event representation, or when used in iMIP.
> 
> This interpretation suggests that the "owner" role should rather be reserved for JMAP, not a standard value in either JSCalendar or iCalendar? I'll wait for Neil to chime in.

Yes, in one of my earlier replies to this thread I suggested that the “owner” role should be defined in JMAP for Calendars rather than in JSCalendar itself. Neil felt this was not necessary, but I haven’t yet asked him to elaborate on the reasoning.

If the “owner” role does remain defined in JSCalendar, then the calext-jscalendar-icalendar draft should clarify whether (a) it maps to a JSPROP or (b) to a new iCalendar ROLE=OWNER, which the draft could then request to be registered with IANA.


> 
>> That said, I’ve updated my conversion tool to map the “owner” role to an OWNER value for the iCalendar ROLE parameter. While this value is not currently registered, doing so simplifies permission validation (rather than looking for JSPROPs) when iCalendar is used as the underlying representation on the server side.
> 
> Just please don't share that non-standard OWNER role value with CalDAV clients or over iTIP until we registered it at IANA. There's already so much non-standard iCalendar data out there, we shouldn't put more on that pile.

Yes, this is purely for internal representation at the moment. However, if “owner” remains part of JSCalendar, I would prefer that a new OWNER role be formally registered with IANA, as its presence in JSCalendar would imply that it could also be useful in the iCalendar context.


> Do you agree that we should remove the "attendee" role?

Yes, I agree. It seems unnecessary, as the intent is already clear from the participant’s status as required, optional, or informational.


Best,
Mauro